Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Reecius wrote:
Sure, a list tailored to beat it will do better, no doubt. But the objective was to show a normal tournament list against what can come and see what happened.

This is a situation you could find yourself in in a tournament.

Well, a normal tournament list that was written when "normal tournament" didn't include D-weapon titans. Now the metagame is going to shift to lists that can handle titans.

Though in the end I'm agreeing with you that the titan isn't fun. It produces a very black and white game where either you handle the titan easily (probably including a turn 1 kill) and crush the few supporting units that remain, or you aren't prepared to face the titan and you get tabled by it. Neither situation is a very fun game, and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground where the titan lives long enough to be an interesting strategic factor, but isn't completely overwhelming.

 tastytaste wrote:
It can only kill two vehicles at a time, it sucks if you run a LR list or take other spendy tanks, but if a 900 point unit cannot destroy 250 point unit we have problems in the opposite direction. Sure it can kill models, but the blob units in the game are currently killed in similar ways.

Of course a 900 point model should be able to kill a 250 point unit. The problem here is that the 900 point model can kill 2 250 point models per turn without breaking a sweat. And its not like he's limited to obliterating just vehicles, as the D-weapon rules means he can kill pretty much everything near instantly unless it is swooping/zooming.

Although on the concept of coming up with potential limitations, I do wonder how the Lord of War rules would work in a tournament if you just didn't allow D-weapons...it might actually be okay.

Strength D weapons in competitive play seem like an obvious non-starter. That said, I don't think the concept of superheavies is fundamentally bad or anything. Without strength D, I think they have a lot of potential.

I voted for everything. I like the idea of Escalation. If anything were to be banned though, I think it should be D Strength weapons. They are excessively powerful and are, in my opinion, unfair and unfun.

EDIT: I agree with Kingsley and yakface.

As a player I can plan on dealing with a lot of problems.
- I can plan on dealing with 6-8 wave serpents.
- I can plan on dealing with seer councils by playing to the mission
- I can plan on dealing with tau buff commanders joined to riptides.
The only thing you can do against the tau dataslate is plan on taking your models off the table. That needs to be banned.

Let me show you what you can build for 1850. You could also swap out the inquisitor for eldar so you can have them join riptides.
25 - Inquisitor
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters)
- That's 72 twin linked tank hunter STR 7 shots
- That's 72 twin linked, tank hunter, ignore cover, homing STR 5 shots
- That's 3 STR 8 AP2 large blast templates

I'll be honest. I have zero interest in spending money on a plane ticket and hotel room to fly out and see my opponent bring that list. I might as well just lay out my army on a nice new megamat then put them back into their tablewar cases. Its the same enjoyment.

I think I'm ok with Escalation. S10ap1 no invulnerable/cover 10" templates = goodbye deathstars. When 6th hit, I didn't break apart my meltagun guys, just put them on the shelf somewhere and told them it was time for a nap. 2++ reroll? Who cares.

D6 Scatter = Oblits in your rear armour.

@Reece and labmouse: Single Force Org limits those stupid nonsense armies. It also still lets people take at least one or two or whatever of whatever model they want.

New list quickly thought up for 'new' 40k

CCS with missile launcher

Platoon
PCS with lascannon
5 infantry blobs all with lascannons

Platoon
PCS with lascannon
5 infantry blobs all with lascannons

Platoon
PCS with lascannon
5 infantry blobs all with lascannons

Vendetta

Super heavy with volcano d weapon. (shadow sword is it?)

Dont blob up, have 18 small units all with lascannons and d weapon. Against another super heavy that should really put the hurt on it in one turn then score objectives and win the game.

If 40k goes like this I am done with it.

Great video. Next can we see a 5th edition list against a 6th edition list then bemoan the fact the 5th edition list will have to undergo a sea of changes to be competitive.

I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

Agree with hulk on all points.

If you don't want to ban formations, make them 1 per player and/or make them your only allowed allied detachment.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

This.

Plus I voted in the LVO poll this morning. If you got the email vote soon so the decisions can be made!

I'd like to see what a "titan-killer" list looks like, considering there are several armies in 40k that can barely handle AV14 reliably (if at all), let alone super heavy vehicles and titans. I imagine it would be very hard to build a list that could handle a titan that doesn't abuse the rules quite a bit itself by using allies, formations etc., that's also balanced enough to handle any other list you could face. Personally I'm not convinced titans and crap can be dealt with without either bringing one of your own (which makes "Escalation" quite the appropriate name) or being so highly specialized against them that you're automatically fethed against anything else. And you can't "just ignore" something wiping multiple units off the table, from anywhere on the table, every single turn, either.

I also think the idea that "Anything is balanced as long as it costs crap tons of points!" is really...I can't really think of a word to properly describe the extent of just how "silly" that is, honestly. It doesn't matter if it costs 1,000 points or more, being able to erase half an army per turn from practically anywhere on the table because you have the range and the height to see over everything, and being resilient enough to resist incoming firepower from whatever is left while it continues to systematically destroy everything is fething insane, and CAN NEVER BE BALANCED. Hell, a model like that could realistically be someone's entire army, so even if it costs as much as one who cares? That's why crap like this was always treated as purely optional and never saw play outside of Apocalypse or the rare, stupid, super-casual game where everyone just throws their hands up and says "I wanna see what the titan does!" (and then they never play with it again), because they quickly find out those games aren't really fun. It's not fun being on the other end of it and it's going to get really old really quick being the guy inflicting that crap on other people.

Titans are cool to look at, but sadly that's about the only good thing going for them. They're hilariously expensive and so long as GW proves to be incapable of producing balanced rules for them, they have no place in a game of 40k, competitive or not. They're not fun to play with or against, and I'm sure even the most super-casual, die-hard fanboy would agree with me after watching his carefully painted and arranged models get erased by the handful every turn, every game, without being able to do anything about it.

If only GW made another game, maybe one at a smaller scale than 40k, where units like titans and super heavies are not only common place but the game is purposely designed and balanced with them in mind from day one, and every army has access to them. Being at a smaller scale would also make them affordable as opposed to the 40k-scale wallet warrior nonsense that FW delivers. Not sure what GW could call that game, but it sounds really epic in scale, and something I wouldn't mind building an army for myself if it were supported.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

But we had justification for treating it differently before: it was an expansion, it was something that existed outside of "standard" 40k and was presented as optional rules for games. It was all pretty cut and dry for the most part. Supplements aren't the same beast at all and banning their use in certain cases and not others is harder to justify. The company is telling us that for all intents and purposes this is all "standard", they're not optional rules that we can choose to use or ignore at our leisure, and they're really no different from people using the different codexes. So by ignoring Escalation and anything else labeled "supplement" or the new dataslates and other digital-only products, you're no longer playing "standard" 40k, you're playing a heavily comped/house-ruled version of it where literally every event will be different depending on the personal opinion of whoever is running it. It's not as fair and unbiased as it was before with "rulebook and codex" (IA books were always labeled expansions so I still don't consider them standard, but feth it, we have bigger problems than FW now).

 Hulksmash wrote:
Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

So ban the Tau formation but not Be'lakor? Why? Be'lakor is broken, too, the rules cost the same, and GW has said they're both 100% official and part of standard 40k. If that's the case then I think all the dataslates should be banned just to make it all even, and Codex: Inquisition should be banned too, because I don't think it's fair for every Imperial army to get access to a third ally that doesn't count as their detachment when every other army only gets one and I'm not allowed a formation.

Ban allies too, while you're at it. Like others have said, it would be good to see "real" armies again, and not these awful-looking mash-ups of 3+ different books all painted in different colors that don't even look like a cohesive force or make sense in the game's fluff.

My suggestion=Let's make some lemonade out of GW's lemons. Unpopular items include The Relic, allies, digital supplements, digital codices, and data slates.

Modified rules for the relic by adding 2 more rules to the relic: The weakest link and the relic is mine. Only 1 army gets to take home the relic, and their allies fight and die so that they can possess it. Can you really trust them, or do they plan on stealing or claiming legal ownership of the relic for themselves?

The weakest link: All allies are immediately downgraded in the matrix to the worst possible combination found within the matrix. Examples Eldar allied with DE and a inquisition=Everyone is desperate allies with each other because inquisition and DE are desperate allies.

No the relic is mine: At the start of a players turn every detachment must have the model closest the relic make a leadership test if it's within 12" of the relic. If the any of the tests are failed the alliance downgrades 1 tier until the start of the player's next turn. IC joined to a battle brother squad turned AoC are kicked out of the squad. If the alliance downgrades to come the apocalypse treat it as desperate allies except the range of one eye open is extended out to 12" Vehicles and models without a LD score are LD10. Example: An IG squad with an AS and Inquisition character attached to the squad are all within 12" of the relic, three leadership tests must be passed to not have the alliance downgrade to allies of convenience.

That shuts down a lot of shenanigans and overly complicated lists with 3 or more detachments. It would also make the relic really interesting, and give a boost to pure 1 codex armies.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If you ban BB as an ally you're penalizing certain armies that aren't abusive. Why ruin it for everyone?

I can't think of any BB that are taken that aren't abusive.

So BA and UM can't attach IC's to each other. So what.

Tau should never be allowed to have psychic powers cast on them. Nor should they be allowed to have superior psychic defenses through an attached Farseer.

BB is one of the most abused feature of 6th edition. No army is remotely affected by removing it, except for abusive lists.

+1 darth

I do agree with downgrading BB to AOC, I have said it before and will say it again. Currently in the UK we have had a highlander style tourny with BB down to AoC just finished and that was a good sucess so hoping to see more next year.

I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

I don't think this is a bad starting point. Formations and Escalation seem to have no place in a "balanced" game. It also seems like lots of players are against these.

As for the 2++ re-roll, I think the best way to address it may be to simply say:

-Fortune negates a failed save on a roll of 4+
-The Grimiore only affects a Daemon's base invulnerable save.

That means that units which really aren't a problem (random Precog Terminator Libby, Laughing Autarch, and even to an extent a Grimiored Fateweaver) are left un-altered. However, the two main offenders (Seers/Screamers) are brought back to a more reasonable level.

I'd play that game with little to no complaints. It is probably worth seeing what the new Nid SOTW is before messing with 2+ re-rollable quite yet.

MarkyMark wrote:
I do agree with downgrading BB to AOC, I have said it before and will say it again. Currently in the UK we have had a highlander style tourny with BB down to AoC just finished and that was a good sucess so hoping to see more next year.

Glad to hear that MM. Were there other restrictions ? Was Dep Allies upgraded to AoC or just BB ? Any insights to what lists were at the top and how Screamer/seer stars performed ? Im sure they were still up there but was it a bit more tolerable ? I would also be interested in what the average player thought ?

Right now if i was getting ready to run a Tournament my gut would be to:

Standard FoC w/ allies
Allow digital codexes and suppliments
not allow formations and escalation
- Take a hard look at Lowering BB to AoC
- 2++ would stay for now

Thats my present stance.

It was highlander so no screamerstars (plus I didnt make it ). Sadly the warhammer forum is down and cannot remember any other details, when it is back up I will add the other restrictions as there were a few.

I have spoken to a few of the bigger UK TO's and they have already been thinking of changing things in the tournies, some have pretty much already decided to ban these two supps, even if the Fortifications adds in some interesting building rules (which would be hard to add into a house FAQ).

How many tournies in the US have been won by screamerstar and seer council?.

 Sidstyler wrote:
...The company is telling us that for all intents and purposes this is all "standard", they're not optional rules that we can choose to use or ignore at our leisure...

Um, while they're certainly promoting these new books as standard, 'the company' tells us that all of their rules are optional and can be used or ignored at our leisure.



Even without that, I would have absolutely zero problem with a TO picking and choosing which supplements to allow, or cherry-picking parts of certain supplements, in the interests of keeping a tournament functional and fair.

Just about 70 votes on the LVO Poll in already! Woot! Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

Today we will be posting a Video Bat Rep with 2 Super Heavies, no Dirty D's allowed!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

There should just be an "I agree with Hulk" poll option. The goal should be to keep hardcore tournament goers happy enough while increasing the buy-in from inexperienced tournament players. I think his suggestions would do exactly that. If, in six months or a year, it turns out that Escalation isn't as damaging as we suspect it is, this can be amended, but erring on the side of caution here seems pretty wise.

 Reecius wrote:

I was thinking we could do:

40K Unleashed!
All in, everyting legal goes. Be prepared for what is coming!

40K Tactical!
Restrictions based on player feedback.

What do you guys think?

I personally love this - but if I am being honest here, the tournament community is much more likely to go with your 40k Tactical option. The 40k Unleashed! option is likely to be a second type of format more akin to the 40k Friendly (at Adepticon)... or actually more like the 40k Gladiator event. I doubt it would be the "premiere" event. Again - I think people are WAY over reacting to this rules supplement.

I am glad they keep it as a separate rule book - it makes it very easy to just say "We aren't playing with escalation" and move on.

I am truly saddened by how cynical it seems a loud part of the community has become. Take the game and make it your own. GW has been advocating this for a LONG time now.

Take a breath. It's just a game. As far as tournaments go - TO's will make some choices and then you vote with your wallets/attendance.


Also - Cross Posted from the 40k General forum:

From the GW Digital Editions Facebook Page:

Question:

Bjørn Berg Olsen Please tell me Escalation requires consent?

Answered:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Bjørn,
As with all our rules, they are as official as you decide to make them.

The intent is that they be used in regular games of Warhammer 40,000, but I'd hope no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to.

- Eddie

Of course this will be debated and argued about forever anyway....

 morgendonner wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

It is a little disappointing Brad doesn't run tournaments of his own! Get on that buddy it's not like your busy or anything, only Californians are busy

This is why I attend every event I can that Reece runs. I trust him to make well thought out decisions and run a tight ship. And if something goes wrong he gives out beer.

As someone who is decidedly middle of the road at major GTs, my best finish ever was seventh every other finish has been somewhere near the bottom of the top 1/3, I appreciate that a top player like Hulk is watching out for ways to make the game fun and sustainable for those players who rarely if ever are in contention. Which is honestly 80-90% of the GT.

 morgendonner wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

99% agree with Hulksmash. I think the answer should be no, unless the TO makes a specific permissive exception in a pre tournament FAQ. Belakor is cool, but the fireblade is total bs. GW jumped the shark and is releasing massive amounts of crap without vetting it. Throw the baby out with the bath water to be on the safe side, and if you decide the baby is cute pick the baby back up again and keep it.

I do not see the point of these allow or disallow posts. It is not like expansions for 40k are a new thing.

Was there a big freak out when these came out?
-Planet Strike
-Cities of Death
-Death From the Skies
- Spearhead

They provide us as players with new ways to enjoy our hobby. Why then is this craze going on now? This mass panic? Baffles me. Each of the Expansions is a similar but separate animal than the original.

At no time before was there a mass hysteria about the expansion ruining the tournament setting. Why? Because it was an expansion.

I do not see why Escalation and Strong hold assault are any different.


Digital content .. now there is something I can see discussing. Because as far as I know the digital items are not clearly marked as expansions or as extensions of the general rules and/or codexs.

 Prophet40k wrote:
I do not see why Escalation and Strong hold assault are any different.

The difference is that Escalation and SH are not expansions.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Let me show you what you can build for 1850. You could also swap out the inquisitor for eldar so you can have them join riptides.
25 - Inquisitor
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters)
- That's 72 twin linked tank hunter STR 7 shots
- That's 72 twin linked, tank hunter, ignore cover, homing STR 5 shots
- That's 3 STR 8 AP2 large blast templates

Don't worry, the Reaver titan lists will take care of that. D-weapon spam laughs at your Broadsides and Riptides, and you only have three guns that can even roll dice against AV 14 (and all of them will be gone by the end of the first shooting phase). Don't you love Escalation?

This is why I attend every event I can that Reece runs. I trust him to make well thought out decisions and run a tight ship. And if something goes wrong he gives out beer.

Haha, you're revealing my secrets!

But yes, we take pride in what we do and want to do our best, always. Thanks for the vote of confidence, my friend!

@Carl

Ah, we'll see. We aren't going to make any decisions until we get the Poll results in.

80 so far!

@Thread

We just played another game with IG + Banenlade against Orks + Stompa. Great fun!

You take the D Weapons out of the equation and these units are not only manageable but a ton of fun to play. D Weapons just suck the fun out of the game for me, personally.

Expect that video bat rep tomorrow.

 Reecius wrote:

@Thread

We just played another game with IG + Banenlade against Orks + Stompa. Great fun!

You take the D Weapons out of the equation and these units are not only manageable but a ton of fun to play. D Weapons just suck the fun out of the game for me, personally.

Expect that video bat rep tomorrow.

I'd imagine Baneblades and Stompas would be fine for most games, in fact, with the extra VP's for killing them, may be more of a potential risk to bring than not (as a BB is, at worst, no harder to kill than 3 Leman Russ tanks). As you said, it's gonna be the D weapons that mess things up. Looking forward to seeing how it went.